2 responses from Mr Richard J Harvey (Individual)
1. Mr Richard J Harvey (Individual) : 25 Apr 2012 09:47:00
Paragraph No.
1.9
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
In my opinion. despite its protracted nature, the consultation process has not effectively engaged all sections of the community. It is now particularly disconcerting that the public are invited to make brief and concise comment, in a short consultation period, on a vast amount of text, which has proved very contentious. SLDC appear to have conducted the exercise with a degree of cynicism and contrary to the true spirit of genuine consultation.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination
2. Mr Richard J Harvey (Individual) : 25 Apr 2012 09:51:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - RN57M MILNTHORPE ADJ. TO ST ANTHONY'S CLOSE
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
My representations focus on proposed allocation of RN57 at Milnthorpe, which I
consider to be neither sound, justified, nor effective.
In maintaining opposition to the allocation of RN57 on access and safety grounds, I am
supported by at least 51 adult residents from the 53 dwellings on the existing St Anthony's
Hill housing development.
We do, of course, accept the need for an adequate supply of affordable housing to meet
the legitimate needs of the local community, but we are not persuaded that, having regard to
the form and character of Milnthorpe, this justifies an arbitrary allocation of 186 dwellings, far.
more than are necessary to satisfy the actual need for affordable houses. This would appear
to have been a simplistic, top-down calculation rather than one based on the environmental
capacity of Milnthorpe to satisfactorily accommodate such a large number.
There cannot, of course be any guarantee that the suppliers of private open-market
housing, who are presumably expected to provide the required affordable housing, can and
will do so. Unfortunately, no alternative mechanisms are put forward should this approach
fail. There is a danger that Milnthorpe could face a large increase in the number of houses
without meeting the basic need for affordable housing.
Incidentally, we are not satisfied that the infrastructure implications of the
various land allocations in Milnthorpe have been properly considered and that
the agencies involved in their provision are fully committed to their solution within the
timescale required and the resources available to them.
During earlier phases of the consultation process, particularly ill-considered proposals for
development on M6; R79 and part of R93, which encroached on the setting of St Anthony's
Tower, were understandably abandoned.
However we strongly maintain that all of R93 (including the residual part now
identified as RN57), should have been excluded.
This is particularly pertinent since RN57 might be developed in such a way as to open up,
for subsequent development, the land hitherto excluded. Indeed the very shape and
disposition of RN57 would suggest that it is indeed intended to open up more land to the
East and North. If this happened, the existing blatantly obvious access problem on the
inadequate and potentially dangerous spine road serving the St Anthony's Hill housing
development would be. greatly exacerbated.
This road is narrow, tortuous, lacks adequate footways; has steep blind bends and is
regularly obstructed by parked vehicles, which effectively reduce it to a single lane.
Collisions between cars have already occurred and there have been a number of very near
misses. Emergency vehicles face access difficulties and to improve the road would be very
difficult and might be impossible without compulsory purchase.
Moreover, the road has a very poor and potentially dangerous junction with the A6. If the
Highway Authority has indeed been consulted (we have been unable to obtain any
categorical assurances that this has happened) ,we would be amazed if they considered the
sight-lines for traffic joining the A6 were adequate, especially since traffic on this section of
the A6 frequently disregards the 30mph speed limit with apparent immunity from prosecution.
In short, we would urge that RN57 be removed from the land allocation. That
it has not already been removed suggests that SLDC have given inadequate
consideration to earlier reasoned objections.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination
